I have a client with a two word company name, let's say "Our Name". Have registered and using domain our-name.com since ourname.com was taken. But a few months ago I made a whois on ourname.com and found it was about to expire. So, I hired a service to snatch the domain as soon as it became available.

The snatcher failed, someone else got the domain, and a couple of weeks I made another whois to see who bought it. Somewhat susrprised, I saw that it was registered by buydomains.com. I mailed them and asked for the price, and they replied $ 2,500.

This bugs me. A lot. As far as I know and understand, every domain name owner has agreed to ICANN's terms, e.g. not to buy in "bad faith" in order to re-sell: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm#4

But since buydomains' entire business idea is to do this, aren't they violating the agreement a thousand times over each day? And what's the chances that my client can claim the domain?

Input very much appreciated.

TIA

D

well better than paying $10,000 in the snap auction :D

i'd say 2.5K is average for a nice name, try to bargain with buydomains some times itworks

becausing fighting in URDP will surely cost more than 2.5K against guydomains

No they are not unless your client has a TM on the name. Hopefully the service you used to try and backorder it wasn't NoDaddy.

It seems they just snatched up the name, does not seem illegal

Thanks for responses!

acts837, solidar:

But how can you say that they're not violating ICANN's conditions? ICANN points out "bad faith" and defining this as e.g. somoone who buys a domain with sole purpose of selling it - which is exactly the core (?) business idea of buydomains.com.

My impression is that ICANN makes people agree to the conditions in order to stop precisely this kind of business, but maybe I'm missing something. Can you elaborate as why you think it's OK?

(BTW: for something to become "illegal", it need to break a law. Violating an agreement isn't.)

Bashar:

Yeah, the sheer business-side of this will be discussed with my client, rest assured. But I was more interested in people's take on this, IMHO, pretty sleazy business practice.

Cheers,
Dan

Dani, did they contact you? No, you contacted them. I have several domains will eventually get developed. In the mean time I have them parked. Why not let them domain pay for itself until I get the time to develop it? BTW: What you are describing here isn't "bad faith".

Dani, did they contact you? No, you contacted them.
That is immaterial.
BTW: What you are describing here isn't "bad faith".
Hmm... if this isn't, I don't know what is. Just read here: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm#4 and you'll see the defintion as one of the most clear and obvious conditions I have ever seen, and the business idea of buydomains.com fits right in. If you don't think it is as obvious as I do, I would appreciate if you could explain to me why. No sarcasm at all.

Originally posted by Dani
But how can you say that they're not violating ICANN's conditions? ICANN points out "bad faith" and defining this as e.g. somoone who buys a domain with sole purpose of selling it - which is exactly the core (?) business idea of buydomains.com.



is this the part you are referring to?

....registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant.....

Dani, I just don't understand how your situation falls under any of these?
b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

Originally posted by Dani
That is immaterial.
Actually if you look back at old cases of wins vs losses who initiates the contact does matter and proves intent. BD (btw, I am not trying to defend them) was happy and content parking that domain and I am almost positive they would have never contacted you nor you client.

is this the part you are referring to?

....registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant.....

Yes and no. It's the entire description of what they regard as a violation, including the paragraphs above where it says that the owner need legitimate interest, etc. To me, it's obvious that ICANN don't want domains to become a commodity and the text describes pretty well what buydomains.com are doing and hence, is contradicting ICANN's regulations.

But I'm open for an explanation.

Does you client have a TM or SM? Did buydomains contact you? Listen I feel your pain. I have two domains that are not developed that I would love to have. One is very near and dear to me. The domain doesn't resolve and hasn't since I have been watching it. I have offered over $2k to the owner with no response whatsoever. The real ugly part is that if it ever drops chances are I won't get it then either. And if I filed a UDRP I would lose and I know it.

Originally posted by acts837
Actually if you look back at old case of wins vs losses who initiates the contact does matter and proves intent.

Yes, so I have heard. However...

...can you point to some sources with facts, or is this merely a hearsay?
...I have heard this, too. But I have not heard/seen the full scenario, i.e. how many cases had been won or lost by either side when either the complainant or the seller has initiated a sale.
...wouldn't you say that having a website where you're offering domains this way is to initiate sales? Do you really think that they can look a judge in the eyes and say "Oh, no, our intention was absolutely not to SELL the domain. We just had it because we liked it so much. I don't know who put together the unfortunate texts at our website about 'selling' and bought the domain name 'buydomains.com'". ;-)

Cheers,
D

I just slowly re-read the entire thread. Maybe you think that BuyDomains business model is to catch these domains and hold them for resell. Is that what you think?

I just slowly re-read the entire thread. Maybe you think that BuyDomains business model is to catch these domains and hold them for resell. Is that what you think?
Yes. They're the registered owner, etc, of the domain in question and they bought it 2-3 weeks ago when it became available.
So, it's not as if they're selling on behalf of someone.

These people make money off of the traffic. If a domain earns revenue they could care less if it gets sold or not. Of course for the right price almost anything is for sale. Take a look at sunglasses.com (http://www.sunglasses.com) and tell me what do you see? It is a Pay Per Click (PPC) engine. To some this may be squatting to others they see the owner as one lucky individual to get the revenue from that domain. Buydomains business model is PPC not selling domains. They earn millions from the traffic that their domains generate.

Interesting thread, guys. Keep it up!

Originally posted by Dani
I have a client with a two word company name, let's say "Our Name". Have registered and using domain our-name.com since ourname.com was taken. But a few months ago I made a whois on ourname.com and found it was about to expire. So, I hired a service to snatch the domain as soon as it became available.

This is basically where the problem started. Why weren't you able
to renew the domain with its registrar or reseller instead of using
a "snatching" service?

Originally posted by Dani
The snatcher failed, someone else got the domain, and a couple of weeks I made another whois to see who bought it. Somewhat susrprised, I saw that it was registered by buydomains.com. I mailed them and asked for the price, and they replied $ 2,500.

This bugs me. A lot. As far as I know and understand, every domain name owner has agreed to ICANN's terms, e.g. not to buy in "bad faith" in order to re-sell: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm#4

As you've just discovered, interpreting the UDRP rules is almost as
esoteric as psychic phenomena. That's one area best consulted
with an attorney who lives and eats UDRPs anytime of the day. :D

Originally posted by Dani
But since buydomains' entire business idea is to do this, aren't they violating the agreement a thousand times over each day?


Oh they've been there, done that, and they know what to do...on
a case to case basis, that is. :)

Originally posted by Dani
And what's the chances that my client can claim the domain?


Only by negotiating for it or using legal avenues can help you or
your client.

Originally posted by Dani
Yes. They're the registered owner, etc, of the domain in question and they bought it 2-3 weeks ago when it became available.

Just because the name was previously registered to you doesn't
automatically grant you absolute exclusive rights to it (or in this
case your client), just as it doesn't grant that either to trademark
holders. The only one who has rights to the name is the currently
registered owner who is consistently paying for it.

On the other hand, there are parties out there who say they have
greater rights than the current owner, especially TM holders. But
they have to prove it first, and that's where the UDRP, Court, or
your friendly neighborhood negotiator comes in. ;)

From your posts, the question here, then, is BuyDomains using it
in bad faith, so to speak?

Unfortunately that's for a UDRP or a Court to decide, and for your
client to prove and BuyDomains to prove otherwise if it comes to
that.

Good luck.

acts837:
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about....PPC? What on earth has that to do with the matter?

davezan:
You're misunderstanding. Neither our client nor were the owner of the domain. I spotted it as close to be available and hired a snatcher to get it as we don't have the time to (nor knowledge) ourselves.

This "been there, done that" is nothing but a cliché. I am pretty convinced that they're playing the odds. As stated in this thread earlier, $2,500 is cheaper than hirng a lawyer, and that's probably what most think and do.

And the few (?) who're seriously threatening buydomains.com with lawyers are probably bought off. Either buydomains.com simply gives them the domain, or something extra to go with it. Regardless of their offer, a condition is that the recipient of the domain (the complainant) can't disclose the deal. Thereby, they're safeguarding themselves, and that's probably why you never (?) hear or read that a complainant has succeeded in court.

At any rate: I think the whole business sucks. IMHO, domains, as telephone numbers, should not be subject to speculation. And if someone argues that it should, why not simply let ICANN do the business then? Why sell the domains for $10 and see them be re-sold for $2,000 a day later? Better ICANN did the selling and the money did some good.

Cheers,
D

Originally posted by Dani
davezan:
You're misunderstanding. Neither our client nor were the owner of the domain. I spotted it as close to be available and hired a snatcher to get it as we don't have the time to (nor knowledge) ourselves.

Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Dani
This "been there, done that" is nothing but a cliché. I am pretty convinced that they're playing the odds. As stated in this thread earlier, $2,500 is cheaper than hirng a lawyer, and that's probably what most think and do.

And the few (?) who're seriously threatening buydomains.com with lawyers are probably bought off. Either buydomains.com simply gives them the domain, or something extra to go with it. Regardless of their offer, a condition is that the recipient of the domain (the complainant) can't disclose the deal. Thereby, they're safeguarding themselves, and that's probably why you never (?) hear or read that a complainant has succeeded in court.

At any rate: I think the whole business sucks. IMHO, domains, as telephone numbers, should not be subject to speculation. And if someone argues that it should, why not simply let ICANN do the business then? Why sell the domains for $10 and see them be re-sold for $2,000 a day later? Better ICANN did the selling and the money did some good.

And let ICANN have all the fun?

Incidentally, there are 2 domains I want. But they're in the same
situation as yours and acts837.

Like most if not everything else, you don't have to accept how it
goes despite understanding it. Just...make do with what you can.

Originally posted by Dani
Cheers,
D

:beer:

Dani, Here is an example for you to realize how big this business is.

This domain dropped recently and has an overture with extension of 35
-> notadamdime.com <-

I found it this morning and it is available as of this post. 10 to 1 this domain will get registered very quickly after I make this post. Why? Because overture is one indicator of potential traffic and that is what people like BuyDomains are after.

Originally posted by Dani
[B]acts837:
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about....PPC? What on earth has that to do with the matter?
You don't have to like it but I am telling you that BuyDomains is in the PPC business not the "snatch them up and make them pay to get it back business". So it has everything to do with your complaint.

In the broadest possible sense, buydomains.com is in clear violation(s) of the spirit of the ICANN rules. The 'letter of the law' gets more hazy, and that's their playground for now.

I agree that they are simply 'playing the numbers' and don't have any 'legitimate interest' in grabbing these domains for any other purpose than resell at a profit.

Unless and until ICANN streamlines the process so that even an 'ordinary joe' can contest this stuff nearly "automatically", then it's gonna go to the $$ guys every time.

What gives you any more right to the name than them? Reselling domain names is just like other industries, loko at real estate for example. People buy up property with the intent to resell it. ICANN doesn't want people violating other people's rights (trademarks namely) so we have UDRP which you can challenge their legitimacy. Just because someone wants to sell something doesn't constitute bad faith. Many people get mad that someone else has your name, when in fact you should be thankful they are willing to sell it. Had Elequa picked up the name I would say you're doomed :)

Kevin, all of the recent "squatter" threads have been entertaining...don't rain on the parade.

Sorry, Dani, that buydomains beat you in the race to snatch the expired domain name. It happens. Best thing to do is move on.

acts837:

When I wrote that I don't understand what PPC has to do with this, I meant exactly that. No offense, but you sure have a way of making enigmatic posts, and your reply doesn't solve anything at all:
You don't have to like it but I am telling you that BuyDomains is in the PPC business not the "snatch them up and make them pay to get it back business". So it has everything to do with your complaint.
Why not explain to me why the issue at hand is related to PPC? Who is clicking where? Where did you get that from? Or is "I am telling you" what I have to settle for?

And what is this:
all of the recent "squatter" threads have been entertaining...don't rain on the parade.
Have I been "entertaining"? What "parade"? This sounds as if you're suggesting some superior insight in the matter and that you're amused by how the less knowledgeable are babbling away.

Again, no offense, but instead of posting what is easily taken as condescending nonsense, why not contribute to the thread with some substance, preferrably backed up by relevant links?

ACStudent :

Yeah.. that's what probably will happen. Maybe. I'm just one of those people that can't roll over and die when I see something I consider wrong. I'm the kind that sometimes tries to do something about things. Then, the kind of people who always says "ah, forget it and move on" can enjoy a world that's a little bit better - probably thinking it became a bit better by some law of nature . ;-)

kohashi:

Why do you think ICANN has cooked up the conditions at all? What could they possible have been aiming at? Is it because
a) they want domains to be bought and sold on speculation like any other commodity, or
b) they want to restrain domains from being bought and sold on speculation like any other commodity?

Danbo

While I dearly hope that no one think that I created yet another alias, yours, to get some support here: Yes, that's about my take on this.

Final note:

I must say that I'm a bit baffled to see that so many are defending this practice. I have no problems if a legitimate business with a domain e.g. changes its company name and sells the (now useless to them) domain for a nice heap of money, it's the sheer speculation I strongly dislike. I like market economy, but I also like to be careful about the few precious phenomenon that are available to you and me and not only to millionaires.

If someone think it's OK to fork out thousands for a domain, then why not simply cut away the middle man? Let ICANN form a subsidiary to handle the trade and allow the money to be re-invested in the web in one way or another. At least, that would give us something in return.

Cheers,
D

Dani, writing is not one of my stronger points. I'll try again but first take a look here. (http://www.parkquick.com/)

Paid Per Click is a business model. Companies like Sedo.com, DomainSponsor.com, and Fabulous.com pay people to "park" their domains with them so that advertisement portals can be dished up. You get paid by the click. If I have a domain that receives 10 clicks a day it could easily pay for itself in a few months hence the remaining part of the year it be all profit.

Buydomains (BD), Ultsearch, and a few others are at such a high level that they don't need to go through the companies I mentioned above. They are the "big dogs" in the PPC business and they go straight to the advertisers themselves like Google. In a nut shell the story goes like this:
a) BD finds a name that they think will generate income.
b) BD obtains domain when it drops.
c) BD points said domain to their portal.
d) Anyone who visits said portal and clicks on a link generates income for BD.
e) Traffic = Income = sound investment...BD doesn't want to sell domain.

At no time in a through e did I mention them trying to contact anyone to sell said domain. You were fortunate to have even been sent a reply. As Kevin mentioned, other PPC people won't reply, sell, or even entertain the notion of parting with a domain unless they loose in a court battle.

I read what I posted and see that it may not have sounded that nice. In your case I apologize. What has sparked my attitude is all the recent threads about squatters and such. It has become a trend..."Hey somebody stole my domain!" in reality somebody else has a domain they believe should belong to them.

Originally posted by acts837
No offense, but you sure have a way of making enigmatic posts, and your reply doesn't solve anything at all:

Dani, acts837's explanation isn't mean to solve anything. Sure,
what BuyDomains et al do isn't what many people don't like at all,
and some of us share that.

What sets us apart from others is that we've accepted it and have
either moved on, worked with it, or "around" it. If you believe you
found a way to somehow change the system, then by all means I
say go give it a shot.

Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Originally posted by acts837
And if someone argues that it should, why not simply let ICANN do the business then? Why sell the domains for $10 and see them be re-sold for $2,000 a day later?

Like kohashi said, think of it like real estate. Some people see a
lot of value in them, others see less.

IMHO, I think the only way you'll be able to understand it is if you
give it a shot yourself. You know, try to get what may be a high
valued domain, then resell it to someone.

But like what you did to BuyDomains, wait for someone to make
you an offer. If that ever happens and you're unsure, do ask here. :)

Originally posted by acts837
Better ICANN did the selling and the money did some good.

If you've read about VeriSign's Waiting List System (WLS) around
here and other places, you'll see why many people vehemently
objected to it. What more if ICANN attempts it?

Besides, ICANN's job is to oversee the DNS, not resell domains. ;)
(although even that is in serious doubt...)

Originally posted by acts837
It has become a trend..."Hey somebody stole my domain!" in reality somebody else has a domain they believe should belong to them.

This is definitely one trend that needs to be busted. Who you
gonna call? :D

Dani, let me modify what I said earlier: the only one who has
rights to a domain name is the current registrant who consistenly
pays for it and is RAW (Ready, Able, and Willing) to defend that
right.

I hope we're clear on that.

Why do you think ICANN has cooked up the conditions at all? What could they possible have been aiming at? Is it because
a) they want domains to be bought and sold on speculation like any other commodity, or
b) they want to restrain domains from being bought and sold on speculation like any other commodity?


Restrain domains being bought? No. They make money for each domain being bought. (25 cents or around there). So clearly they do not want to restrain domain buying. ICANN put the rules in place so people don't steal domains and abuse their uses. Buying to resell is not bad faith. it is bad faith if you buy a company's trademarked name and try and resell that. The act in and of itself isnt bad faith. You need to distance yourself from your personal experience and bias and look at what people are telling you you. Many of these people know very well what is going on in the domain industry and just because you aren't getting what you want doesn't mean others are abusing the system or the system doesn't work, etc.

Originally posted by kohashi
Buying to resell is not bad faith. it is bad faith if you buy a company's trademarked name and try and resell that.

Especially if you contact the trademark holder first and try to resell
it to them. ;)

Originally posted by Dani

ACStudent :

Yeah.. that's what probably will happen. Maybe. I'm just one of those people that can't roll over and die when I see something I consider wrong. I'm the kind that sometimes tries to do something about things. Then, the kind of people who always says "ah, forget it and move on" can enjoy a world that's a little bit better - probably thinking it became a bit better by some law of nature . ;-)

Cheers,
D [/B]

Dani, I'm afraid that you misunderstood my post. It isn't that something is wrong, just that you lost in a fair contest. Get over it.

What's all the fuss about?

I mean, they are doing a legitimate business.

We own several domain names (around 700 now), we are not using even 100, but we've bought each domain as an investment.

Some of them will be developed into full sites, some others will be used as "anonymous domains" for DNS servers (for our resellers).

But we've also bought domain names just because they get a lot of traffic, so we park them and collect the money every month.

Even if a domain get's us $1.00 a month it's a good investment, since we buy domains at $6.20/yr, so $1/mo x 12 months = 12/yr, 12/yr - 6.20/yr = 5.80/yr. I know that 5.80/yr doesn't sound like a huge business, but when you own 500 domain names and you get around 4.00/mo per domain (1.00 was only to demonstrate my point), then you get 24000/yr. 24000/yr does surely pay for the server we use to park all those domain names :)

$6.2/year? thats lower than cheaper than icann accredited registrar fees, whois selling ower than cost for that huge volume if i may ask? :)

I was wondering that myself Bashar.

I can't release the provider, as that's not allowed as per our contract, however let me put something clear, our provider isn't just a domain registrar, we have a huge contract with them.

It would be like ev1's domain name promotion a few months ago, they sell domain names at a loss but profit from other services.

yea hthats possible ;) cause i know some registrars with special agreement they give 6.25 (at cost) as special relation.

If only our agreement allowed us to resell domains... it would be a nice business. But one of the drawbacks of our agreement is that we have to be the "end user".

They are "losing" 5c/yr per domain, but we are paying them over 2,000/mo so I guess they can take that loss.

Originally posted by SEATi
We own several domain names (around 700 now), we are not using even 100, but we've bought each domain as an investment.

But we've also bought domain names just because they get a lot of traffic, so we park them and collect the money every month.
OK, I understand how the PPC business model works, but isn't this just an excuse for the "extraordinarily high-volume reseller"?

Let's be real here - The reason that there's traffic to those domain names in the first place is that (other than typos), someone is usually looking for either a category/ type of business or a specific business / person itself.

I've got no issue with businesses that are 'speculating' on Domain Names based on business categories. When you get down to VERY SPECIFIC names of existing businesses, (trademarked yet or not) it's gone beyond speculation into something approaching fraud. Would Buydomains.com really have a 'legitimate' claim to "mikesseastsidemufflershop.com" other than seeing that traffic is already being directed towards it?

Let the resellers reclaim their initial investment, cap the profit at no more than $100-per-domain and this issue fixes itself.

Anyone have a REAL issue with that solution?

Maybe if you look at ICANNs policy, firstly ICANN growing teeth over night and getting itself in a dispute of this nature is unlikely.

The nature of your complaint is that they bought it to sell it on at a higher price, while most threads are implying that they bought it to bring in traffic. What were you planning to do with the website address? I assume either to make profit or to provide some sort of service? What makes your venture any different from theres?

They are using the domain name to make money, granted not the way you would. They are parking it - Can you prove that this is in direct violation of ICANN policy?

If they had contacted you and said you can buy it from us at $2.5k then there intention from the start was to use the domain name to lever more money from you, which is in violation. As with most laws, terms and conditions you have to make a really good case. If you believe that the domain name was registered for "bad business" make a case out of it, there are loads of companies that deal with domain disputes.

I know quite a few people that this has happened to, it is our opinion that the rules of ICANN and Nominet are just guidelines - who are going to enfore them Nominet/ICANN? We have never had much luck in the past unless you have a really really good case(trademark infringement)(. Has anybody launched a dispute with ICANN and Nominet and known it to be settled really quickly? with little or no hassle? for no charge?

Just my opinion but your probably likely to end up fighting for this (if that is what you decide) until the domain name is up for renewal again and they will probably just let it slide then and you will have wasted a lot of time and money.

Just my opinion

Originally posted by andrewjab
Maybe if you look at ICANNs policy, firstly ICANN growing teeth over night and getting itself in a dispute of this nature is unlikely.

The nature of your complaint is that they bought it to sell it on at a higher price, while most threads are implying that they bought it to bring in traffic. What were you planning to do with the website address? I assume either to make profit or to provide some sort of service? What makes your venture any different from theres?
First, I'm not the guy involved in this dispute, just stating one guy's opinion here!

Second, your argument is circular - Buydomains.com isn't buying up domains to "bring in" traffic, they're buying domains that already HAVE traffic. The most logical reason that these sites already HAVE that traffic I gave in my LAST post. Profiting on an 'established' name for a profit was precisely what the ICANN was hoping to avoid!

I understand & agree that unless it's an extremely high-profile case, or pursued by high-$$ litigators that nothing will come of it. That's why I suggested in my FIRST post in this thread that there needs to be a way to streamline the dispute process.

Originally posted by Danbo

Second, your argument is circular - Buydomains.com isn't buying up domains to "bring in" traffic, they're buying domains that already HAVE traffic. The most logical reason that these sites already HAVE that traffic I gave in my LAST post. Profiting on an 'established' name for a profit was precisely what the ICANN was hoping to avoid!


So you are saying that if "webhostingtalk.com" expired and iNET Interactive didn't renew it I wouldn't be able to register it and benefit from it's massive traffic?

If you develope a website, and get some regular traffic then it's your responsibility to renew the domain name, if you don't and the domain becomes available it's perfectly fine for any person to register it and get your traffic.

Let's turn this to real estate. Let's say that you open a hardware store and after 3 years of business you decide to move to a larger building as the current one isn't big enough anymore. After you leave the building another guy buys it and opens his own hardware store there. He would get a lot of your customers, as some of them wouldn't be aware that you are now in a new building but there's nothing you could do against the new store's owner.

As far as buying domains that already have incoming traffic...

Why did the previous owner let the domain expire if they needed it? Are we not to register domains because they've been owned previously? Honestly the "expired" domain goes thorugh a lot before it is avilable for purchase again, so previous owners to have a chance to get it back if they want it during this time.

To register a domain name, than contact it's previous owner to sell it back to, that would be in bad faith.

There are a lot of things to consider...

If I offered you a baseball card that is worth $500.00 for $5.00 you'll buy it, even if you aren't a baseball card collector, because you see a chance for a "quick buck" and you realize that it would only take you a couple days to get it to a card shop and sell it maybe for $100.00 (to make it a quick sale), so you would have a $95.00 profit in just 2 days.

The same happens with domain names, maybe you see a nice domain that can't be registered as a trademark (maybe because of the word, something like business.com) and you know for sure that a LOT of people will enter "business" in search engines so your domain will get a lot of traffic and also that sooner or later there will be someone interested in owning that domain name so you can sell it at a higher price and make a nice profit.

It has happened since the begining of times, when you "invent" something you get a patent and therefore if someone else needs to use something similar they have to pay you a fee.

If a hollywood producer finds a writer that writes 2 books a year and sees that all his books are suitable for movies then he'll try to get the exclusive rights on every single book the writer publishes.

The domain aftermarket is a huge industry and it's proven to be legal, so I can't understand why are some people complaining about it.

I know it's a pain in the a** to try to register a domain name and find out that it's owned by a domain speculator/reseller, but hey, that's life.

My opinion here is the following,
if you let a domain expire in the current market it is your own fault. There are plenty of safeguards in place to make sure if the rightful owner wants it, they can get it back when the domain is expiring (unless it is some form of hijacking - which should be reported to the authorities and legally taken back). You have 30 days where the domain name is inactive, if you were using it and it was important 30 days is plenty of time to notice, 'oh my revenue has gone to 0, my website doesnt load and i no longer get email, what happened?' If they don't renew after that period I think it is ethically fair game and we can safely assume they don't want it. Buydomains and other people (myself included) pickup nice looking names people let expire. Why shouldn't we be allowed to buy domains we think might be valuable. If it is trademarked, that is a special exception. You cannot compare the small exception of 'cybersquatting' and apply it to a broad market of buying domains. An expired domain name is no different than me registering a fresh one. Technically, once it is released it is 'fresh' and open for anyone to register like all other domains which aren't currently registered. We cannot practically believe that once you register a domain you have an indefinite ownership(lease) of the name. Again, just because the system doesn't favor you doesn't mean the system is unfair or wrong or anything else. When money, business and egos (to some extent) are at present someone tends to lose, that's just the way things work.

Originally posted by Danbo
That's why I suggested in my FIRST post in this thread that there needs to be a way to streamline the dispute process.

The current dispute process (UDRP in this case) appears to be
streamlined, although sure there's always room for improvement.
But what exactly do you mean by to "streamline"?

Originally posted by kohashi
When money, business and egos (to some extent) are at present someone tends to lose, that's just the way things work.

I think that practically sums it up. :D

Maybe I missed it, but the point here is that buy domains is not trying to keep the domain from the trademark holders, just from other people who have an equal right to the name, if they bought ford.com and wouldnt give it to Ford Motor Company then that's bad faith but they dont have to give it to john doe. They can also charge Ford Motor Company for out of pocket expenses I believe. And if someone really challenged them buydomains could just apply for a trademark for the domain and have some real legal rights to it. (this is not legal advice)

However there are some domains that can be trademarked, mostly because they do only contain "common use" words. The only way to trade mark one of such domains is to include the domain extension. i.e. you can't trademark hosting (if you owned hosting.com) but you can trademark "hosting.com" or "hosting dot com"

Originally posted by SEATi
However there are some domains that can be trademarked, mostly because they do only contain "common use" words. The only way to trade mark one of such domains is to include the domain extension. i.e. you can't trademark hosting (if you owned hosting.com) but you can trademark "hosting.com" or "hosting dot com"

I'm not sure on that, you may be right, but you may be able to trademark hosting if you specify for what use (ie what class)

For example below is a live trademark for a common word - mobile:

Word Mark MOBILE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Optical, electrotechnical and electronic apparatus and equipment; electrotechnical and electric apparatus for recording, emitting, transmitting, receiving, reproducing and processing sounds, signals, characters and/or images; electrotechnical and electric apparatus for recording, processing, emitting, transmitting, communicating, storing and broadcasting information and data; computers for communication, software; optical, electrotechnical and electronic communication apparatus

IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Collection of information and data via the Internet; consulting in operating databanks; electronic services, namely collection and storage of data, information and images; provision of computerized information in a databank including by means of interactive (information) systems

IC 037. US 100 103 106. G & S: Consulting in computer and telecommunication network equipment

IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Transmission of electronic data using telecommunication facilities, telecommunication networks as well as related equipment and components; Internet services, namely Internet transmission of information and data; providing access to an electronic commerce platform via the Internet, provision of access to an Internet portal for others; consulting in operating telecommunication networks; electronic services, namely transmission or distribution of data, information, images and video and audio sequences; transmission of information stored in a databank, including by means of interactive (information) systems

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Electronic services, namely storage of video and audio sequences

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Consulting in installing databanks, consulting in operating computer installations, design, development and planning of computer and telecommunication equipment and services, of telecommunication networks, as well as of related tools; technical design, consulting, testing and monitoring in the field of system and product integration with telecommunication network and computing products; electronic services, namely translation of data, information, images, video and audio sequences; design, development and rental of computer programs and of computer apparatus; design, development, maintenance and management of Internet content; Internet services, namely creation and implementation of Internet presentations; rental of computing services on the web, hosting services, namely provision of storage space on the Internet
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 79004039
Filing Date March 24, 2004
Current Filing Basis 66A
Original Filing Basis 66A
International Registration Number 0829465
Owner (APPLICANT) SIEMENS SAS Société par actions simplifée FRANCE 39/47, boulevard Ornano F-93200 SAINT-DENIS FRANCE
Priority Date October 14, 2003
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

(this is not legal advice)